DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. According to applicant’s argument filed on 04/11/2025; claims 1,5,12,14,15 and 20 have been amended hereby acknowledged.
3. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore 101 rejection over independent claims has been withdrawn.
4. Applicant ‘s argument regarding Zhong reference is moot because Zhong reference is not used in the current rejection.
5. Applicants argues that the primary reference Duersch fails to disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, which recites: “the communication context in which a context of the real-time communication between the participant and the second participant via the media stream”.
6. Examiner would like to point out that the new secondary reference Bar (2017/0289168) in Para:0028, Para:0042, Para:0063 and Para:0068 teaches the above claimed limitation.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
8. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No.11,824,873. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter as the patent claims, but with obvious wording [such as obtaining a media stream depicting a real-time communication of a participant in a communication context; identifying the communication context; obtaining a personalized model of the participant when communicating in the communication context, wherein the personalized model is configured to identify a behavioral pattern of the participant; executing the personalized model on at least a portion of the media stream to determine whether a behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream matches the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model, and upon identifying a mismatch between the behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream and the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model, performing a responsive action]. So, the above mentioned claims of the instant application are rejected under nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duersch (US Pub. No.2020/0288204) in view of Bar (US Pub.No.2017/0289168).
11. Regarding claims 1,15 and 20 Duersch teaches a method, a computer program product and a system comprising: obtaining a media stream associated with a participant, wherein the media stream depicting a real-time communication of the participant in a communication context; wherein the real-time communication comprises a context of the real-time communication; identifying the communication context; obtaining a personalized model of the participant when communicating in the communication context, wherein the personalized model is configured to identify a behavioral pattern of the participant (Para:0005 and Para:0026-0029 teaches the digital content personalization system identifies characteristics of a user by analyzing a digital video—from a collected stream of digital media—that portrays the user while the user accesses one or more websites via a client device. In particular, the digital content personalization system can analyze the digital video using a facial detection model to identify the facial characteristics of the user. Such characteristics can include, but are not limited to, an emotion of the user, a gender of the user, an age of the user, apparel of the user (e.g., whether the user is wearing glasses or a hat), or a gaze of the user (i.e., via head tracking or eye tracking). The facial detection model comprises a machine learning model. The digital content personalization system can utilize an attention controlled neural network and/or subsegment-based methods for facial attribute detection to identify facial characteristics.
In one or more embodiments, the digital content personalization system identifies the live user context by analyzing the digital video portraying the user using the facial detection model to identify characteristics of the user. The live user context further includes one or more objects identified by analyzing the digital video using the object detection model. The user context includes additional characteristics of the user identified by analyzing audio content portraying the user using an audio detection model. Para:0153 teaches generating personalized digital content based on manual input received from the user as well as identified characteristics of a user and/or identified objects from a digital video portraying the user while the user accesses the one or more websites);
Duersch teaches all the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach the communication context in which a context of the real-time communication between the participant and the second participant via the media stream; and upon identifying a mismatch between the behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream and the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model, performing a responsive action.
Bar teaches the real-time communication comprises at least a communication between the participant and at least a second participant via the media stream, wherein the communication context comprises a context of the real -time communication (Para:0028, Para:0042, Para:0063 and Para:0068 teaches the real-time communication between the user and a second user via social media platform);
executing the personalized model on at least a portion of the media stream to determine whether a behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream matches the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model (abstract, Para:0004, Para:0021-0022 and Para:0082-0083 teaches executing a user persona model and determine the behavioral pattern of the user matches the personalized model);
upon identifying a mismatch between the behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream and the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model, performing a responsive action (abstract, Para:0015-0016 teaches comparing the behavioral pattern of the user with the user persona model, if there is a mismatch perform a responsive action such as access will be restricted or limited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filing to modify the teachings of Duersch to include the communication context in which a context of the real-time communication between the participant and the second participant via the media stream; and upon identifying a mismatch between the behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream and the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model, performing a responsive action as taught by Bar in such a setup user-related activity of a legitimate user is monitored to determine a user persona model for the legitimate user.
12. Regarding claim 2 Bar teaches the method, wherein the responsive action comprises generating an alert or blocking the real-time communication, wherein the alert indicates that the media stream is forged (Para:0016 teaches the posting a message on social media that the determined user identify is an illegitimate user).
13. Regarding claim 3 Bar teaches the method, wherein said identifying the mismatch comprises determining that a difference between the behavioral pattern of the participant in the media stream and the behavioral pattern of the participant according to the personalized model exceeds a threshold (Para:0063, Pra:0027-0029 teaches determining the behavioral pattern of the user exceeds a threshold).
14. Regarding claim 4 Bar teaches the method, wherein the personalized model comprises a classifier that is trained on a dataset, wherein the dataset comprises media records depicting communications of the participant in the communication context (Para:0028, Para:0042, Para:0051, Para:0063 and Para:0068 the media record contains communications of the participant in the communication context).
15. Regarding claims 8 and 16 Duersch teaches the method and the computer program product teaches the method comprising training a first personalized model of the participant under a first communication context, and training a second personalized model of the participant under a second communication context (Para:0024-0027 teaches training the personalized model of users under communication context).
16. Regarding claims 9 and 17 Bar teaches the communication context is selected from a group consisting of: a friendship relationship, a co-working relationship, a family relationship, a business relationship, a customer-client relationship, and a romantic relationship (Para:0068 teaches the communication context is selected from a group consisting of a co-working relationship or a family relationship).
17. Regarding claims 10 and 18 Duersch teaches the method and the computer program product, wherein the communication context comprises a topic of the real-time communication (Para:00119 teaches communication context comprises a topic of the real-time communication).
18. Regarding claim 11 Duersch teaches the method comprising determining an identity of the participant based on at least one of: a facial recognition method implemented on the media stream, an audio recognition method implemented on the media stream, metadata of the media stream, and tags relating to the participant that are attached to the media stream, wherein the communication context comprises the identity of the participant (Para:0080 teaches tagging the video stream).
19. Regarding claim 12 Duersch in view of Bar teaches the method, wherein the communication context is the real-time communication between the participant and the second participant (Bar: Para:0028, Para:0042, Para:0063 and Para:0068 teaches the real-time communication between the user and a second user via social media platform); and said obtaining the personalized model comprises: obtaining a private model generated based on past communications between the participant and the second participant, wherein the past communications are not publicly accessible (Duersch: Para:0119-0120 and Para:0141 teaches generating a personalized digital content based on the past communications/interactions of the participants).
20. Regarding claim 13 Duersch teaches the method, wherein the behavioral pattern of the participant comprises at least one of: face movements of the participant, face gestures of the participant, a gait of the participant, a walking pattern of the participant, hand movements of the participant, frequently used phrases of the participant, a talking manner of the participant, or a voice pattern of the participant (Para:0038-0039 teaches the behavioral pattern of the participant comprises the face movements of the participant, face gestures of the participant).
21. Regarding claim 14 Duersch in view of Bar teaches the method implemented on a communication system used by the second participant, wherein the communication context is a communication between the participant and the second participant (Bar: Para:0028, Para:0042, Para:0063 and Para:0068 teaches the real-time communication between the user and a second user via social media platform), wherein the communication system is configured to retain communications between the participant and the second participant and to generate a private model for the communication context based on the retained communications (Para:0119-0120 and Para:0141 teaches generating a personalized digital content based on retained/stored communication context).
22. Regarding claim 19 Duersch teaches the computer program product, wherein the instructions, when read by the processor, cause the processor to determine an identity of the participant based on at least one of: a facial recognition method implemented on the media stream, an audio recognition method implemented on the media stream, metadata of the media stream (Para:0038-0039 teaches determine an identity of the participant based on a facial recognition method implemented on the media stream), and tags relating to the participant that are attached to the media stream (Para:0080 teaches tagging the video stream), wherein the communication context comprises the identity of the participant (para:0024-0027).
23. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Duersch (US Pub. No.2020/0288204) in view of Bar (US Pub.No.2017/0289168) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cohen hereinafter “Cohen 1” (US Pat.No.11,417,343).
24. Regarding claim 5 Duersch in view of Bar teaches all the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach the method, wherein the dataset comprises a first class of media and a second class of media, wherein the first class comprises media records originally depicting the participant in a communication context, wherein the second class comprises media records originally depicting other people excluding the participant in the communication context, the method comprising training the personalized model to classify media as belonging to the first class or to the second class.
Cohen 1 teaches the dataset comprises a first class of media and a second class of media, wherein the first class comprises media records originally depicting the participant in a communication context, wherein the second class comprises media records originally depicting other people excluding the participant in the communication context, the method comprising training the personalized model to classify media as belonging to the first class or to the second class (Col.2, lines.58-67; Col.3, lines.1-15 and lines.51-67 teaches classifying the audio/video stream into two different groups based on the similarity features extracted from the users audio/video behavioral pattern, and identifying the representative/participant in the communication based on a match) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filing to modify the teachings of Duersch in view of Bar to include the dataset comprises a first class of media and a second class of media, wherein the first class comprises media records originally depicting the participant in a communication context, wherein the second class comprises media records originally depicting other people excluding the participant in the communication context as taught by Cohen 1 such a setup will identifies the representative/person in the real-time conversation.
25. Claims 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Duersch (US Pub. No.2020/0288204) in view of Bar (US Pub.No.2017/0289168) and in view of Cohen hereinafter “Cohen 1” (US Pat.No.11,417,343) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cohen hereinafter “Cohen 2” (US Pub.No.2018/0013893).
26. Regarding claim 6 Cohen1 teaches the method comprising: implementing media fabrication techniques on the first class, thereby obtaining processed records of the participant, thereby adding the processed records of the participant to the first class, and adding the processed records of the other people to the second class (Col.2, lines.58-67; Col.3, lines.1-15 and Col.12, lines.5-17 teaches adding the processed records of the participant in one group and the other people into another group).
But Cohen 1 fails to teach wherein said media fabrication techniques are configured to replace the participant with different people excluding the participant, implementing media fabrication techniques on the second class, thereby obtaining processed records of the other people, wherein said media fabrication techniques are configured to replace the other people.
Cohen 2 teaches the method wherein said media fabrication techniques are configured to replace the participant with different people excluding the participant, implementing media fabrication techniques on the second class, thereby obtaining processed records of the other people, wherein said media fabrication techniques are configured to replace the other people (Para:0319 teaches media fabrication techniques are configured to replace the participant voice with different participant/ people).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filing to modify the teachings of Duersch in view of Bar and in view of Cohen 1 to include media fabrication techniques are configured to replace the participant with different people as taught by Cohen 2 such a setup will enable the individual teleconference participant to perceive in real time both the content conveyed by the other participant and simultaneously the affect conveyed by the other participant which would result in the audience receiving the desired media as requested.
27. Regarding claim 7 Cohen 2 teaches the method, wherein said implementing the media fabrication techniques on the second class comprises superimposing the participant over at least some of the other people (Para:0319 teaches superimposing the participant over another participant/ person).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREENA T CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri : 7:30 AM-5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter-Anthony Pappas can be reached on 571-273-7646. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEREENA T CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights